Terminology associated with God's Attributes

[bconway52]

Is the communicable/incommunicable distinction that most theologians make concerning God's attributes a viable one? I have heard the criticism that we are made in the entire image of God, not just in the image of God's incommunicable attributes. God's almighty power allows Him to carry out all of His holy will. In the same way, our power allows us to carry out our desires. God is omniscient. In the same way, we know something about everything in the world - it was all created by God, is sustained by Him, interconnected, etc.

Can anyone offer resources either for or against this terminology?

Also, should we term it "attributes" or "perfections"? A criticism I have heard for "attributes" is that it inherently says that these are the things WE attribute to God...

Any resources would be great as we are discussing this topic in Sunday school...

 

[BobVigneault]

I think the terminology is helpful. Obviously the distinctions are not Biblical terms but rather terms to help theologians categorize and organize our thoughts about the perfections of God.

Communicable attributes are those to which we can relate in some finite way. We understand them as looking through a glass dimly. We experience in shadow what God is in full light.

I know what it is like to show mercy so I have a means to begin to understand what God reveals of himself when he say he is merciful.

The same with love, jealousy, anger.

I have no way to relate to the idea of omniscience or omnipotence. I cannot experience even a shadow of supremacy or infinity, those belong to God alone.

 

[Vytautas]

We have experiences of knowledge, power, and love (which are communicable attributes), but we cannot experience what it is to be infinite, eternal, and unchangeable (which are incommunicable attributes). Usually the attributes of God are compounded into omniscience and omnipotence, but the communicable/incommunicable distinction differentiates between attributes that we have experiences of as creatures and attributes that we can never take on. In this case, knowledge and power are communicable, but infinity is incommunicable.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Bradley,

All theology is accomodated to our abilities and is only analagous to the Truth. Calvin notes that God lisps to us to communicate Himself to us. I think Calvin is also prudent where, in his Institutes, he doesn't wrangle over words.

I really don't care what you call them but there are things that are true of the Creator that are not true of us and there are things where we can rightly be said to be like Him as His Creatures. We don't derive these ideas in the abstract but from His Word. God is infinite, we are not. He is eternal, we are not. He is good and we reflect His goodness in our redeemed state. He is holy and we are commanded to be.

I don't know precisely what you're looking for here. It's obviously important to note that God is not merely a collection of attributes and some philosophical systems make much hay out of bounding God by ideas that we can understand but, as I said, the Creator has accomodated Himself to us. As long as we remember we can only apprehend God as He reveals Himself to us, use Scripture as our rule, and never assume we can comprehend Him then it keeps categories straight. The alternative is a false piety that is really disbelief that says that we can know nothing about God because He is wholly other: we can know some things because He has revealed it.

 

[BobVigneault]

Here are a bunch of resources on God's attributes at the Monergism site.

 

[bconway52]

Bradley,

All theology is accomodated to our abilities and is only analagous to the Truth. Calvin notes that God lisps to us to communicate Himself to us. I think Calvin is also prudent where, in his Institutes, he doesn't wrangle over words.

I really don't care what you call them but there are things that are true of the Creator that are not true of us and there are things where we can rightly be said to be like Him as His Creatures. We don't derive these ideas in the abstract but from His Word. God is infinite, we are not. He is eternal, we are not. He is good and we reflect His goodness in our redeemed state. He is holy and we are commanded to be.

I don't know precisely what you're looking for here. It's obviously important to note that God is not merely a collection of attributes and some philosophical systems make much hay out of bounding God by ideas that we can understand but, as I said, the Creator has accomodated Himself to us. As long as we remember we can only apprehend God as He reveals Himself to us, use Scripture as our rule, and never assume we can comprehend Him then it keeps categories straight. The alternative is a false piety that is really disbelief that says that we can know nothing about God because He is wholly other: we can know some things because He has revealed it.

Rich,

You've made some great points here. Thanks! We surely shouldn't make this a philosophical and abstract discussion, that is why I posed the question, thinking that by using the terms we make it to be such. But we shouldn't quibble over terms as you have suggested and in fact, they do offer some necessary and good distinctions. Berkhof and a Brakel both have some good comments on this subject in their respective theologies that I found after I posed the question.

So...for anyone interested, look to Berkhof and a Brakel!